National Republican., 1887-11-02
How to Reduce the Surplus.

how would decrease our revenues, and hav
been told that it was easier to make oblcctlOus
than to indicate an affirmative policy
Well, first would repeal the tobacco taxes
Applause The consumption of tobacco ig al
assured fact and of American tobacco by Amer
cans The old line Of luXuries and necessitie.
OF life in our grea, prosperity hos become ob
scured, If hot entirely removed, and wber
taxes are In no way all incidental protection
they should be removed from that which 1.
most generally consumed by all classes of our
people, and the taxes upon tobacco to day d
not answer any good purpose; they are
burden, requiring an expensive machinery 70
their collection aud harbor for ollceholders
Remove them Who objects to 1t? Applause.
And have a suggestion or two to make with
reference to another industry. At the presen
time we are paying suppose, about s5l,OOn.
600 in import duties or tariff taxes to supper
the sugar industries in this country. Our en-.
tire annual product of American sugar, mo-
lasses and sirups, suppose, Is about $4,000.
O00 worth. There has been but little lncreas
comparatively in the American production
for series Of years. The best sugar crystals
to-day are necessity upon every tabe--of the
poor man as well as the rich. Here Is thc
highest protected industry in the United
States. and think with the least beneiicia
results in the way OF its development. Fifty
million dollars paid TO protect sl6.000OOO
more than 800 per cent, and what has struck
me as remarkable is that in all the diatrlbrs
that have heard or seen against protection
many OF them emanating from this good c!ty
of Brooklyn, all of them based upon the
assumption that, to the amount of the import
tax, the price is increased to tho consumer;
no orator, no newspaper, no political econo-
.f., hot, "a F,r \ thutts
gument with this sugar tax practically use.
lees as 1t is for incidental development in the
way of an increase OF the product In America
Why IS 1t presidential messages, one Of them
at least, has expressly excepted sugar from the
list of articles to be added to the free list?
In reference TO nearly every other article i'm.
ported reduction of the duty adds to the
revenue because the importation is increased
but with reference 10 sugar, our people demand
II fer consumption and the duties would
scarcely affect the amount ofimportation, and,
therefore, n reduction of them would reduce
the revenue, No assaults are directed againsi
1t by the free trade world, and yet 1t IL taxed
10 this immense amount. and this burden of
fifty millions collected from what the Demo
Gratis style "a tax buldened people" without
incidental benefit TO the labor or the capital of
the country. And orthose queIists who have
asked me 10 define my position on this ques.
ton of reduction retort, why not put sugar on
the free list or largely reduce taxation upon g.
Give me your reasons ard if you can, Civ,
reasons that do not equally apply to every
article manufactured or product from raw
material that is imported into the Uniten
StRtcs, the great question of incidental pro
lection.
suppose that q sufficient production of thn
sugar industry of the country would euaOl-
us to produce the entire $4,000 coo worth that
we annually import here. # that is theI
policy will join hand in hand with them t"
develop beet sugar industry here that viii
enable US to compete with France and Ger,
many. may add, for a suggestion, that we
may better supply the place OF the present
protection by bounty system. Fifteen mill.
ions OF dollars expended in bountles in the
United States would remove at least two.thirds
OF the present taxes we pay upon sugar; afford
q better protection TO the sugar industries ana
develop the beet industry, Why not do It?
Oh. no, 10 that the Democracy free trade
organs shout, bounty, bounty" Laughter ]
] do not care by what name you call 1t,
bounty or subsidy, If II protects American
labor and extends the uses for American cap
ital, Increases our national wealth, and nd.
vances our prosperity, am in favor of it, One
of the mott remarkable tributes to protection
or bounties-ii you are pleased to call It SOL
their effect upon the sugar market. [Applause.
Europe, in a few years, by paying them, ha'
been enabled to produce more than one.hali
the sugar that reaches The commercial world
and bear 1t down 10 a price heretofore uu
known in trade.
Why, ask these gentlemen and papers thai
have interrogatcd me, do you discriminate IN
'Gyor Of sugar as against iron2 BY protection
we have become the second iron and steel pro
ducipg country in the world. Six million tons
of pig iron and nearly 100000 tons Of steel
have been accomplished by protection, adding
yearly TO our national wealth by the develop
ment of our mines, to our individual wealth
and to the labor Of the wage.workers. Is II
because English capital influences you aud her
iron masters are your masters aud demand
| your adv0cacy-our market for the product oi
their mines and furnaces-or is 1t because
the sugar industry principally Is in a Demo
| cratic state?
We congratulate not only Senator His.
| cock, but the country upon the fact that
so able man, and one so powerful from
| his position as the senator from New York,
has come boldly out in favor Of the true
| plan for the reduction of the revenue by
abolshing the war tax on tobacco and the
duty on sugar.
The NATIONAL REPUBLICAN has been al.
yocating this policy for months. 1t has
shown that the farmers who raised tobacco
were impoverished by tax which ought
to have been abolished years ago. We
have held that no protectlonists should
favor reduction Of the duty on sugar, be
cause II was duty that did not foster any
great industry, but merely produced a rev.
enue, as did the duties on coffee aud tea
which the Republicans removed years ago
Protection has not developed the produc.
tion OF sugar from cane, for 1t has been
heavily and continuously protected from
the foundation OF the government up to the
present time, and yet only oneelevepth oI
the amc unit needed for consumption is pro
ducCd.
1t is doubtful whether caue sugar can be
produced in the United States prontably OF
in quantities sufficient to supply the home
demand. One thing Is certain, that protee,
ion, which has developed so many splendid
iudustrlee, has done nothing toward giving
us supply Of eugar from cane.
Recent experiments indicate that beets
ond sorghum can be made to produce sugar
IN paying quantities. The NATIONAL RE-
luDLIcAN, believing That this was 60, last